CIMM Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Monday, February 23, 2004
| ¹ | 1535 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.) |
|
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.) |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
|
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, CPC) |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair (Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)) |
|
Miss Deborah Grey |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Miss Deborah Grey |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| ¹ | 1545 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Murray Calder |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| º | 1600 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1605 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Miss Deborah Grey |
|
The Chair |
|
Miss Deborah Grey |
|
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Raymonde Folco |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
| º | 1610 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Monday, February 23, 2004
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1535)
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and (2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): I nominate Raymonde Folco.
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I nominate Sarkis Assadourian.
The Clerk: Are there further nominations?
Since more than one candidate has been nominated, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I am authorized to preside over the election of the chair by secret ballot.
Before proceeding, I will briefly explain how the process will be conducted. Nominations for the chair now being closed, my colleague, Jeremy LeBlanc, who is the clerk of the fisheries committee, and I will stand on each side of the table where we will issue ballots to the members. After members have written a choice on the ballot and deposited it at the table, I will count the votes and announce the successful candidate.
¹ (1534)
¹ (1537)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Is there agreement to allow me to vote? I literally, physically, ran over here. I was in the scrum area. I couldn't get away and I ran here as fast as I could. I'd like to be allowed to cast my ballot.
The Clerk: I'm sorry, I can't, on a point of order. My colleagues and I had just finished counting the ballots when you came in.
I'd like to announce that Sarkis Assadourian has been duly elected the chair of the committee.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Clerk: Do members wish to proceed to the election of the vice-chairs?
We'll go with the election of the government vice-chair first and then we'll do the opposition.
I open the nominations to Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): I nominate Ms. Folco for vice-chair.
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Sarkis.
The Clerk: Are there further nominations? No?
Madam Folco has been duly elected the government vice-chair.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: This is really going back seven years in time.
The Clerk: Now we'll proceed to the election of opposition vice-chairs.
Monsieur Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): I nominate Madame Dalphond-Guiral.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, CPC): I nominate Diane Ablonczy.
The Clerk: Are there further nominations?
I declare them closed, and pursuant again to the Standing Orders, we'll proceed by secret ballot. It will take a a few minutes for my colleague and I to hand out and count the ballots.
¹ (1539)
¹ (1542)
The Clerk: As the ballots have been counted, I declare Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral as the opposition vice-chair.
I would invite Mr. Assadourian to take the chair.
The Chair (Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)): Thank you very much for a very hard-working campaign. You can bring down the signs now, and thank you very much, again. I'm sure that I join my colleagues, vice-chairs, who also thank you for your confidence and support.
We have regular business here to pass a few motions, but I've been told by the clerk that perhaps it's better not to pass them today because most of the ordinary members are not here. After all, these members have to work with whatever we pass. If it's okay with you, we'll do this Wednesday afternoon when we have more of our regular members sitting here.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Miss Deborah Grey: Do you think anybody would mind if we did it now?
The Chair: If you want to go now, it's okay.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Chairman, these are motions that have been tested and proven: they work very well. But in order to be able to move on to our actual business Wednesday, I suggest that we dispose of these motions now. I understand that there are a certain number of people who are not actual members of the committee. But people who are here to vote and choose our chair and vice-chairs would seem to me to be truly interested in the Citizenship and Immigration Committee. So I suggest that we deal with that today. I am sure that our clerk will be happy.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Miss Deborah Grey: I'd like to make a motion that we vote on them now and vote on them all as a block, in one vote.
The Chair: Is that agreed?
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean): No.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have some comments on certain motions, Mr. Chair, and some questions. Can we go one by one, please?
The Chair: Okay.
This one concerns the Library of Parliament.
It is moved by Madam Folco and seconded by—
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have an amendment.
¹ (1545)
The Chair: We have an amendment.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, more than 10 years ago we established in this House the precedent of not referring to positions by male or female terms. The proper term in French should be “la présidence”. I would move that amendment.
The Chair: Is that agreed? Is there any objection?
Madam Folco.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we couldn't make all of our terminology gender-neutral. I'm not sure that this is important in English, but I feel that it is very important in French. We could standardize the terms to make them gender-neutral in both languages, rather than going through them one motion at a time.
[English]
The Chair: Is that okay?
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Is that the only objection you had, Ms. Catterall?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.
The Chair: Can we vote on the rest of it as a block?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the opportunity to have some input on the time limits for witnesses and the order in which questioning takes place. We wouldn't be able to vote for this. You talked about voting as a block for all of the motions.
The Chair: Yes, that's what the proposal was at the time she made a point for a one-item change. Now you're making a second item change. Is that right?
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, please.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Let's just deal with them one by one.
The next would concern quorum.
Mr. Pat Martin: Are we under time limits for witnesses now?
The Chair: Can we ask Ben to come in?
Ben is our researcher/scientist, so to speak.
We'll go to the second one, concerning quorum.
It is moved by...? I need a volunteer to move it.
Mr. Pat Martin: I'll move it.
The Chair: It is moved by Pat Martin that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present provided at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.
Is it agreed?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Now we are on time limits for witnesses. This is what Mr. Martin had in mind.
We did this at the last committee. If you want, I can read it. It's about times—how many minutes we each have. We can apply the same principle or we can change it.
It is moved by Anita Neville that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated 10 minutes for the first questioner of the Conservative Party of Canada, followed by 10 minutes for the Liberal Party of Canada, then five minute for the Bloc Québécois, then five minutes for—well, it says Conservatives again....
Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'm not following you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Pat Martin: I can't understand a word—
The Chair: Okay, we'll go back again.
The motion is that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated 10 minutes for the questioner of the Conservative Party of Canada, followed by 10 minutes for the Liberal Party, then five minutes for the Bloc Québécois, then five minutes for the Conservative Party of Canada--I'm reading what it says here--then five minutes for the NDP, and then five minutes for the Liberal Party—
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, CPC): Do we have 15 minutes, then?
The Chair: Well, let me read what we have, ladies and gentlemen. Then we'll come back one by one.
Then it's five minutes for the Conservatives again, and if there's a subsequent round, it reads that the rotation be the same and all questioners will have five minutes.
Let's go one at a time.
Oui, madame.
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, indeed, what we had before was ten minutes for the Liberal Party and five minutes for all of the speakers. I'm very concerned by the fact that in your proposal you give five minutes to the New Democratic Party. In a committee such as the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I think it is important that all parliamentarians have enough time to ask some questions of substance. I don't see why my New Democratic Party colleague would only have five minutes. I have a lot of trouble with that.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
¹ (1550)
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. This is the one I wanted to have some input to.
First of all, we didn't fill in the blank regarding the minutes given to the witnesses for making their opening statements, so I'd be interested in knowing what the past practice is there. In other committees that I sit on—I sit on aboriginal affairs and government operations—we voted on 15 minutes for the presentation of the witness.
But I'm not as worried about that. I am worried about the order in which we are allowed to interview the witnesses and of course the relative location of the NDP in the new configuration, given that the Conservatives and the Alliance have merged.
In other committees that I sit on we go down the opposition side—all of them—and then over to the Liberals and then back and forth. Given that the Liberals have an advantage anyway in terms of access to the witnesses and the majority vote in the committee, it's in deference to the opposition parties, who are less able to have their views made public.
For instance, let's look at the government operations committee that we just voted on. It's nine minutes for the Alliance, seven minutes for all the other parties, and then over to the Liberals for seven minutes. Then, in the second round, we go to, I believe, three, three, three, and three minutes. But this ten minutes and then five minutes is far too drastic and far too radical. I can see how the official opposition should have perhaps more than the other opposition members, but I suggest nine and seven to be the more suitable number.
So I would move to make those two amendments: that it go to nine minutes for the official opposition and seven to all the other opposition parties, and that the NDP follow the Bloc Québécois in the questioning—those two changes.
The Chair: How much is it for the Liberals? Is it ten for the government?
Mr. Pat Martin: No, it would be nine for the official opposition, then seven, seven, seven, and seven.
The Chair: The government would have seven minutes too?
Mr. Pat Martin: That's right. They already enjoy all the advantages.
The Chair: Mr. Obhrai.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you.
Just to follow, we are quite surprised that the official opposition was not elected as the vice-chair, which would be part of a democracy, considering that we have the numbers.
Nevertheless, with due respect to my friend Pat from the NDP, if he wants to bring other committees as an example of what is happening, then of course we can bring the committee on foreign affairs of which I am a member, where it is ten, five, five, and five minutes, going down this thing in terms of recognition. What really is at issue is to recognize the role of the official opposition as well.
I'm not saying that the other two colleagues from the opposition have not an equally important role to play in addressing their point of view. I would say that we stick with nine and seven—although maybe I would want to stick with ten and five—and then go down the opposition side and then to the Liberal side.
The Chair: Mr. Calder.
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Chair, as was previously stated before we went into the elections, the real sitting members who are on this committee are not here today. I'd make the recommendation to the clerk that the clerk look at three different options on time allocation for questions to the committee and have them ready to bring back when the sitting members on this committee are in fact present.
The Chair: Is that agreeable with the committee members? Let's see what we can agree concerning the rest of them, and then if there is that problem with the time allocation, we can come back maybe Wednesday. Is that okay?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Can I say something? I'm not a regular member of this committee and I'm not going to be putting any input in here. As such, I think the suggestion that those who are regular members here should be the ones to decide how they're going to do it makes sense.
The Chair: Madam Folco.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: With due respect, Mr. Chair, the fact that somebody is not a regular member of this committee is an argument that should have been used before the vote. If the person is not a regular member and cannot take the responsibility for the time limits, I don't see how they could have taken the responsibility for voting for the chair. It seems to me those responsibilities are both important.
Thank you.
¹ (1555)
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I could move that we defer this to Wednesday when you have your regular members come in.
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: There's already a motion on the floor, a motion and an amendment. The motion was that we adopt these time limits. The amendment was that we change the time limits. How do we have a motion now to postpone?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, may I ask the clerk what kind of a motion we need, because I think there is some argument. The others are fairly routine motions. This I think should be left to at least a majority of the regular members of the committee to decide because they are the ones who are going to have to live with it.
The Chair: Do you want to make a motion now?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: What do we need, a motion to table, to defer a vote until the next meeting?
Mr. Pat Martin: What happens to all of the previous motions? We have motions upon motions upon amendments upon motions going on here.
The Chair: Do you want us to vote on your motion first?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I hear what the clerk has to say about how to handle this procedurally? I think it's only fair to leave this to the committee.
The Clerk: There is the motion of Mr. Martin, and I can read it. The only one he didn't put in was the time limit for the witnesses. The rest of it is that during the questioning of witnesses, the time allocated to each questioner to be as follows: on the first round of questioning, nine minutes for the Conservative Party, seven minutes for the Bloc Québécois, seven minutes for the NDP, and seven minutes for the Liberals, in that order.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Question.
The Chair: He changes Liberal to NDP and NDP to Liberal, the third and fourth spots. Make that notation.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would like to move a motion, Mr. Chair, that we defer the consideration of the amendment and of the main motion until the next meeting of the committee. Then we can vote on that.
The Chair: We can't accept that motion now because it is a substantive motion, but--
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I ask the clerk what the proper procedure is if the committee wishes to in fact deal with it at its next meeting?
The Chair: We have to go to the motion.
Mr. Pat Martin: I can withdraw my motion, if that's the wish of the committee. Let's hear what Mr. Ménard has to say.
The Chair: Go ahead, Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I think that our colleague Mr. Martin's motion has two outstanding qualities: it gives all of the members of the committee a fair hearing, and recognizes that the official opposition can have more time.
I agree with Ms. Folco when she says that we are here today because with regard to the committee's procedural matters we all have the responsibility of committing our respective parties. I think that we should vote. Several colleagues have expressed their opinions, the vote has been called and we should do that now. I think that our colleague wants this to be a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chair: The problem is that Mr. Martin withdrew his motion.
Mr. Pat Martin: I said that was a possibility, but I like Mr. Ménard's line of argument.
The Chair: Let's have the question then. Is that what you're saying? Do you want a roll call or do you want...?
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Could we have a reading of the motion, please?
The Clerk: This is what I have. It's one whole paragraph, the middle paragraph, that Mr. Martin.... It is moved that the witnesses be given 10 minutes to make their opening statement; that during the questioning of witnesses, the time allocated to each questioner to be as follows: on the first round of questioning, nine minutes for the Conservative Party, seven for the Bloc Québécois, seven for the NDP, and seven for the Liberals.
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Unless I'm mistaken, I understood that it was 15 minutes for an opening statement and not 10.
The Chair: Is it 10 or 15?
A voice: It's 10.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do we divide that into two motions then, or is it too late to do so? There are two parts here, the 10 to 15 and the part about the time allocation for the different parties.
The Chair: I think Mr. Martin did not give a specific time for witnesses, the 10 minutes, but if he includes that in his motion, we can take the whole thing at once.
Mr. Pat Martin: I actually said it should be 15. That's what my recommendation was.
º (1600)
The Chair: Okay, so it's 15 minutes for the witnesses.
The second part of this motion is for the round of questioning after the first round. Will we have the same setup or is five okay for everybody?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Assadourian, that's his motion.
Do you have a subsequent motion?
Mr. Pat Martin: I didn't get as far as talking about the second round.
The Chair: Pat, what I'm saying is we can work the whole thing in at once. The witness has 15 minutes; the parties have nine, seven, seven, and seven; and then in the second round it's five for everybody.
Let's call the question.
The Clerk: It is moved by Mr. Martin that witnesses be given 15 minutes to make their opening statement; that during the questioning of witnesses, the time allocated to each questioner be as follows: on the first round, nine minutes for the Conservative Party, seven for the Bloc Québécois, seven for the NDP, and seven for the Liberals; on the following rounds of questioning, five minutes per party, alternating between the government and opposition parties, and the allocation of time for questioning should be applied to all witnesses, including ministers.
Mr. Ménard has asked for a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 6 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: It's been defeated.
Now maybe we can come back to the point we discussed on Wednesday after the conversation we had here. We can come back with fresh ideas next Wednesday or we can continue with the motions we have here.
So we'll postpone it until Wednesday? Done.
Who is moving the motion on staff at in camera meetings? It is moved by Mr. Simard that unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The motion on the distribution of documents is moved by Mr. Schellenberger, which is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute document to the members at the committee only when they exist in both official languages.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: This is very important. It is moved by Mr. Martin that one copy of the transcript of all in camera meetings be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: It is moved by Mr. Schellenberger that the clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide for working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.
(Motion agreed to)
Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd like to move that Perrier be served at lunch and not just Coke and Pepsi, please.
The Chair: The motion on 48 hours' notice, moved by Ms. Catterall, states that except for amendments to bills, 48 hours' notice must be given before any substantive motion is considered by the committee, and that the motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and circulated to the members in both official languages. Upon receipt of the notice, the clerk shall put the motion on the agenda at the committee's next meeting.
(Motion agreed to)
º (1605)
The Chair: The motion on the acting chair, moved by Mr. Schellenberger, states that when the chair is unable to act in that capacity at or during a meeting of the committee, the chair shall designate a member of the committee to act as chair at or during the said meeting, and such acting chair shall be vested with all the powers of the chairman at or during the said meeting.
(Motion agreed to)
Ms. Marlene Catterall: It seems to me that's why we have a vice-chair. I suspect the background of this is to ensure that if the chair is the government member, then whoever is chairing the meeting should generally be a government member.
I don't know, but I would suggest that we put in an amendment that when the chair or the government vice-chair is unable to act as a chair, the chair shall designate a member of the committee.
The Chair: From my understanding, if the chair and two vice-chairs are not here, then we could have one member of the committee.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: But that's not what it says. As this reads, the chair could designate somebody who's not one of the vice-chairs—and could just ignore the vice-chairs.
The Chair: On occasion, I'm told that we didn't have the chair or two vice-chairs. So just to protect that....
But her point is that it doesn't say if the vice-chairs are not here.
Miss Deborah Grey: Is the point here that a non-government chair cannot chair the meeting?
The Chair: No, it can be the second vice-chair and a committee member.
Miss Deborah Grey: Marlene, I think your point is redundant, because it sounded like there would be a government member in the chair, which I think is just what you said. But that's not necessarily the case, is it?
[Translation]
Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, I am honoured that the committee has chosen me as vice-chair for the third time, and I know that I have on occasion chaired the committee at the request of the chair because the government vice-chair was not there. I am not asking that the second vice-chair preside if there is a government vice-chair, but the vice-chair's duty, as the name indicates, is to replace the chair when he or she cannot preside.
[English]
The Chair: This doesn't happen all the time. This is just protection for us—just in case. In case it happens once in two or three years, we have covered it. That's basically what it is.
Madame Folco.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that when the chair cannot preside and when both the government and opposition vice-chairs cannot preside during a committee hearing, the chair may designate a member of the committee to chair the meeting.
Mr. Chair, you are the chairman, I am the vice-chairman for the government party, and Ms. Dalphond-Guiral represents the opposition. These are the three people who should normally be able to chair a hearing. If those three people cannot do so, then a fourth person could be designated among committee members.
[English]
The Chair: All right, d'accord.
On order in council appointments, Madame Folco moves that whenever an order in council appointment is referred to the committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the said appointment with the appointee's curriculum vitae; and in any other case where the minister makes an appointment, that the committee be informed and the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the said appointment with the appointee's curriculum vitae.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, can I ask the other members of the committee...? It seems to me that committees have the power to review appointments, but very few of them have done it. Wouldn't it be wise to have this also read that the appointment shall be on the next agenda of the committee for a decision as to whether they wish to or not wish to review that appointment? It seems to me that if the committee is not doing that, they should at least make a conscious decision that they are not doing that, rather than just let it slide. It's an important new power of committees that they're not using.
º (1610)
The Chair: I think it's better to leave it to a case-by-case situation, rather than make a decision that we have to do this.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, I'm not making it a proposal that we have to do this, but that the committee must decide on each appointment whether it is or is not going to review the appointment.
The Chair: Case by case, basically.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, but it wouldn't just be letting it slide; it would be making a conscious decision, yes, we will, or no, we will not.
The Chair: So it would be each time we have a request.
Could we have that in writing, so that somebody can incorporate the text?
The Clerk: At the end of that motion it should read “and that appointment shall be listed on the next agenda of the committee and the committee shall decide whether it wishes to review the appointments”.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We come back next Wednesday for the time allocation and future business with regular members.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: There's no motion here to establish a steering committee; that's normally done at the founding meeting.
The Chair: We've never had one on this committee.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would like to request that that item be on the next agenda of the committee—
The Chair: Under future business.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: —to consider whether the committee wishes to establish a steering committee.
The Chair: All right. We'll do it.
Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.